Catholicism and capitalism

[Cymon]

Hello all,

I'm new to this 'phorum' so let me introduce myself first. I'm Cymon, a thirty-something convert to Roman Catholicism. I studied Medieval literature at the university of Utrecht and I'm currently employed as the sacristan of a cathedral in the Netherlands. I was very excited to find this website as the discussions I've read so far are interesting and most have the spirit of sincere intellectual curiosity. I hope I'll be able to contribute to this forum in the same way.

For quite a while now I have become interested in the complicated relationship between catholicism and capitalism. When I read the encyclicals that make up the Church's social teachings, it was very clear to me that the church condemns communism, but that it does not favor capitalism in any special way and instead favoring a system known as corporatism. In the United States the pope has repeatedly been scolded as a communist for his criticism of capitalism. The liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez argued that capitalism institutionalizes sin, creating a system where greed is rewarded and where many people are being kept poor, robbing them of their human dignity as they struggle to survive in slums where they easily fall victim to crime, prostitution, drugs, etcetera.

I'm curious to hear the opinions of other Catholics on the subject. How do you feel about the Church's stance towards capitalism?

[Peace]

Can you explain corporatism a bit?  I am not too familiar with that.

I had thought that the Catholic Church does not agree with pure forms of both socialism and capitalism because both systems are deterministic, without taking ethics/morals into account.

I had always had the impression that the traditional teaching of the Church is closer to socialism than to capitalism. The Church seems to allow private property for prudential reasons, but the holders of private property are to hold it as stewards, in a sense, for the common good of all, and for the purposes for which God intends property. To the extent that it is used for purposes that are not consistent for the purpose for which God intends it, a person has no right to hold property.

I think that is why it would not be considered theft for a person without food, water or other basic necessities to take from a wealthy person with excess. I think some of the early Church fathers even go to the extent to suggest that holding onto wealth/property beyond one's means is actually a form of theft from people who lack basic needs.

Personally, if the above understanding is correct, I agree with that. I do not know the exact circumstances under which retaining excess wealth would be considered a sin - but I do not think it is right for people to live lifestyles that far exceed what they need, when there are people on the earth who struggle just to get food, water, housing, etc. I believe in free markets because I think they produce the most wealth for the greatest number of people - but I think there has to also be some kind of an ethical obligation that is imposed on the system, to ensure that everyone is taken care of. . .

[Socrates]

It really depends on what you mean by "capitalism," which is in reality a pretty vague term.  I would strongly disagree that the traditional social teaching of the Church is in fact "closer to socialism."  Most of the Popes over the past 150 years or so have strongly condemned socialism in all its forms (not merely hard-line communism).  Particularly strong is Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno (which contains his famous statement that "no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.")  The Church does condemn extreme laisseze faire capitalism, or the idea that everything should be left purely to the market, without moral obligations on employers and businessmen.  The Church does strongly teach the right to private property, though like every other right, it carries moral obligations.

I recently read an excellent book by Anthony Esolen, Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching:  A Defense of the Church's True Teachings on Marriage, Family, and the State, which focuses on the teaching of Pope Leo XIII ("the father of Catholic social teaching"), and refutes the common error that Catholic social teaching implies a vast welfare state.  He shows instead that the modern leviathon welfare state is contrary to true Catholic teaching, which stresses the rights and primacy of the family, and the local community of persons, favoring voluntary associations of persons, such as the family and worker's guilds.

John Paul II was explicitly critical of the modern welfare state (or "social assistance state") in his encyclical Centesimus Annus.

 

Edited May 16, 2015 by Socrates

[little2add]

 Capitalism cannot exist,  flourish  or survive without   The FairPlay of christianity 

Edited May 18, 2015 by little2add

[Era Might]

I'm not sure that "capitalism" is the opposite of "socialism" or "communism." The latter are more ideas of obligation, distribution, etc. Whereas "capitalism" (a term I believe was not around before Marx, and he spoke of "the capitalist mode of production") is the idea that you pay workers enough to keep them alive/driving profit and then reinvest the rest of the profits (that's what "capital" is, strictly speaking, the actual machinery that creates the value, in the same sense we use the phrase "capital sins" to refer to the root sins that give rise to others). I think it would be truer to speak of "modernity" as the social idea of capitalism...capitalism depends on many modern assumptions and abstractions, such as the abstraction of power to a "state" or the abstraction of money or the abstraction of markets as opposed to traditional communal life). And from that perspective of modernity, I think there are clearly many problematic questions from a Christian perspective. Modernity arose along with capitalism with tremendous exploitation, not because it was an "absuse" but it was part of the logic...the countries that were more advanced in terms of modern assumptions (technical knowledge, abstraction of a "society" and a "state," modern economic ideas) built their power on the backs of the rest of the world, and fought amongst each other to control that great capitalistic opportunity that was modernity. Not that greed and empire are unique to modernity, but modernity's greed and empire were uniquely capitalist (opening up the greed and empire to anyone who was an "entrepreneur" rather than just an aristocracy or people close to a ruler).

I don't think you can have capitalism with "modernity" understood as a social ideology (things like a free press, no aristocracy, political parties). I'm reading a biography of Stalin right now that focus on the world he inhabited, and Tsarist Russia was its own worst enemy because it could not modernize...e.g., it was illegal to form political parties in Tsarist Russia, which actually helped radicalize the socialists and the workers because they had no social outlet for political oppression. And Russia was obviously a very traditional, Christian country, but not a modern country (and we assume that because the West is modern and Christian that modernity and Christianity are synonomous, but they aren't).

Edited May 24, 2015 by Era Might

[Era Might]

That first sentence in the 2nd paragraph should be "without 'modernity'"...

[Era Might]

Particularly strong is Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno (which contains his famous statement that "no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.")

​Interestinly, his

118. For, according to Christian teaching, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God[54] he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness. Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.

119. Because of the fact that goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable division of labor than by the scattered efforts of individuals, socialists infer that economic activity, only the material ends of which enter into their thinking, ought of necessity to be carried on socially. Because of this necessity, they hold that men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to surrender and subject themselves entirely to society. Indeed, possession of the greatest possible supply of things that serve the advantages of this life is considered of such great importance that the higher goods of man, liberty not excepted, must take a secondary place and even be sacrificed to the demands of the most efficient production of goods. This damage to human dignity, undergone in the "socialized" process of production, will be easily offset, they say, by the abundance of socially produced goods which will pour out in profusion to individuals to be used freely at their pleasure for comforts and cultural development. Society, therefore, as Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things.[55]

120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

This is an interesting passage, because his understanding of "socialism" is as a system of social production where individuals cease to be important. I think that is substantially what we have in a capitalist society, but capitalism is focused on the individual rather than society, so it does a better job of marketing (capitalism will sell whatever croutons sells, but rather than asking the individual to bend to society, it reshapes society around the individual, which is not really the individual but the marketed version of what the individual has learned to be). IOW, I'd argue that marketing is pretty much the same as "socialism" in the context of this passage from Quadragesimo Anno. There's a great quote from Kurt Vonnegut, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." That's capitalist marketing, us pretending to be what the  market has told us to be, not very different from Pius's characterization of "socialism" (though he is speaking of a certain kind of socialism, hardly the only kind).

Edited May 24, 2015 by Era Might

[Socrates]

 

​Interestinly, his

This is an interesting passage, because his understanding of "socialism" is as a system of social production where individuals cease to be important. 

​That's what socialism is in reality.

The almighty, all-eoncompassing Leviathon State usurping the proper role of family, Church, and other free associations of persons, is evil whether it calls itself "socialist," "capitalist," "Communist," or what have you.

[Era Might]

​That's what socialism is in reality.

The almighty, all-eoncompassing Leviathon State usurping the proper role of family, Church, and other free associations of persons, is evil whether it calls itself "socialist," "capitalist," "Communist," or what have you.

​That's modernity. There are versions of socialism that are not rooted in that  modern vision of production, consumption, statehood, etc. Marxism was very much a modern idea, based on modern economic production, but there are, e.g., anarchic versions of socialism.

The phrase "free associations of persons" is pretty vague. You can have family and church in a society where people are not free to associate in many different ways (e.g., in Tsarist Russia). The state is itself, at least in theory, an association of persons (the rise of the idea of a "state" was hand-in-hand with the rise in the idea that people have individual liberties and have a stake in society, with the state being the abstracted institution that makes this real for everyone without being tied to an individual).

The problem is modernity, of which socialism, capitalism, and communism are just children.

[Peace]

It really depends on what you mean by "capitalism," which is in reality a pretty vague term.  I would strongly disagree that the traditional social teaching of the Church is in fact "closer to socialism."

By "capitalism" I would just mean the definition that is given in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

The reason why I think the traditional Church teaching is closer to socialism than capitalism is because the Church does not (at least to my knowledge) recognize a right to property in the natural law. My understanding is that the Church teaches that the right to private property stems from positive law, but it is not a natural right. For example, if you take any piece of land, there is nothing that by according to nature would make you the owner of it as compared to me or anyone else. You may hold/manage property and use it for the ultimate purpose for which God intends it (such as providing for yourself, your family and those around you), but to the extent that your use of the property conflicts with God's purpose for it, you do not have any inherent right to hold it. If, for example, you had a billion dollars and swam through it every morning like Scrooge McDuck, a person dying of hunger would have every right to take some of that money and feed himself. That would not be theft, and the starving person's right to your money would not stem from a moral obligation that you owe to him. Quite literally, that money justly belongs to the starving person in the first place, and to the extent that you withhold it from him, you are guilty of theft. The universal destination of goods trumps any person's right to hold private property, and that is why I believe at the core the Catholic teaching is closer to socialism (insofar as socialism does not contemplate an inherent right to hold private property in opposition to the common good).

The Catechism makes that fairly clear, I think:

2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. the goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."²³⁸ "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity":²³⁹

When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.²⁴⁰

I think that you can find much more support for what I wrote above at the following links:

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/07/stealing-from-poor.html

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-private-property-natural_16.html

I think the Church's criticism with modern forms of socialism were explained by Era Might above - that they were deterministic systems divorced from ethical considerations (as is the pure form of capitalism).

Pope Benedict wrote an interesting article about that a while back:

http://www.acton.org/global/article/market-economy-and-ethics

Anyway, those are just my thoughts on it. I don't claim to be right . . .

[Socrates]

The Church has always taught the right of persons to private property as a natural right, and socialism has been clearly and unambiguously condemned by every Pope from Pius XI to Benedict XVI.

As stated in the Catechism (#2402):

 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge.

Leo XIII taught in his social encyclical Rerum Novarum:

 What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy [the socialists] propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.

 

The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. 

He also stated:

The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man.

This teaching is affirmed by St. John Paul II in Centesimus Annus:

In Rerum novarum, Leo XIII strongly affirmed the natural character of the right to private property, using various arguments against the socialism of his time.⁶⁵ This right, which is fundamental for the autonomy and development of the person, has always been defended by the Church up to our own day.

As taught in Gaudium et Spes:

Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom.

 

The right to private property has its limitations, as the Church teaches that it does not give people the right to abuse it in such ways as abusing employees, or hoarding food or other basic necessities from those in need, but this does not mean that the Church endorses socialism or something similar.

Obviously, voluntary giving to others who lack material goods is a good thing, and a moral precept of the Faith.

What is wrong is forcing someone at gunpoint to hand over his property to yourself or to be given to some third party.  That is theft, and theft is what socialism essentially amounts to.

If there were no natural right to private property, the universal moral precept against theft, "Thou shalt not steal," would make no sense.  It would not be wrong to steal or covet your neighbor's goods if your neighbor had no actual right to possess them personally in the first place.

There can be exceptions in extreme cases, such as someone is starving, and the only way to get food is to steal bread from someone who is hording it.  But that's not what socialism is about in reality.  Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.  Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs (or pick your favorite zillionaire businessmen) making money does not cause other people to starve.  A free market economy increases the total amount of wealth, and makes more goods available to more people.  It was in the socialist USSR, not (then) "capitalist" America where people had to wait in bread lines.  It's in socialist North Korea, not (until recently) free market Hong Kong where people are literally starving to death.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Socrates
link feature originally didn't work

[Socrates]

​That's modernity. There are versions of socialism that are not rooted in that  modern vision of production, consumption, statehood, etc. Marxism was very much a modern idea, based on modern economic production, but there are, e.g., anarchic versions of socialism.

The phrase "free associations of persons" is pretty vague. You can have family and church in a society where people are not free to associate in many different ways (e.g., in Tsarist Russia). The state is itself, at least in theory, an association of persons (the rise of the idea of a "state" was hand-in-hand with the rise in the idea that people have individual liberties and have a stake in society, with the state being the abstracted institution that makes this real for everyone without being tied to an individual).

The problem is modernity, of which socialism, capitalism, and communism are just children.

​Socialism by its nature requires enforcement by someone (whether you want to call it "the State" or just a gang of thugs).

If people voluntarily choose to give up personal property ownership to live in a monastery or a hippie commune, that's fine and good.  The state can just stay the hell out.

[Benedictus]

​That's what socialism is in reality.

The almighty, all-eoncompassing Leviathon State usurping the proper role of family, Church, and other free associations of persons, is evil whether it calls itself "socialist," "capitalist," "Communist," or what have you.

​Any system has the capacity to be implemented badly. I'm less supportive of Socialism than I used to be, and I know this topic has been raised before when I was more supportive.

Anyway, I agree with the thrust of liberation theology if it's detached from political biases. That's sometimes difficult and there has been a hijack of it in South America in a partisan way.

But I'm suspicious of corporatism because it was used, within countries with large Catholic populations, in a way that advanced nationalist fascist ideology in Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Austria etc. The backlash against a form of it in France also predated the revolution.

How does corporatism integrate, if at all, democracy and individual rights? A big bulk of the Catholic view was written pre 20th century. The idea that each part of a society works together as a body or unit seems logical. But how does that body relate and move? It seems to me that to make it work there has to be a central thread to hold it together and to give a direction/mission. In Catholic terms this would be Christian values, Jesus, the Church and the related associations spreading out within a society. But that supposes the Church as temporal and moral authority within the state. Without that wouldn't it simply create room for a secular dictator figure that could as easily supress the Church, as has happened in the past? How is excess power of a state, king, president, religious leader balanced?

Are there any good examples of corporatism actually lasting and functioning in a desirable way? If so, why isn't it more popular?

Edited June 7, 2015 by Benedictus

[Socrates]

​Any system has the capacity to be implemented badly. I'm less supportive of Socialism than I used to be, and I know this topic has been raised before when I was more supportive.

Anyway, I agree with the thrust of liberation theology if it's detached from political biases. That's sometimes difficult and there has been a hijack of it in South America in a partisan way.

But I'm suspicious of corporatism because it was used, within countries with large Catholic populations, in a way that advanced nationalist fascist ideology in Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Austria etc. The backlash against a form of it in France also predated the revolution.

How does corporatism integrate, if at all, democracy and individual rights? A big bulk of the Catholic view was written pre 20th century. The idea that each part of a society works together as a body or unit seems logical. But how does that body relate and move? It seems to me that to make it work there has to be a central thread to hold it together and to give a direction/mission. In Catholic terms this would be Christian values, Jesus, the Church and the related associations spreading out within a society. But that supposes the Church as temporal and moral authority within the state. Without that wouldn't it simply create room for a secular dictator figure that could as easily supress the Church, as has happened in the past? How is excess power of a state, king, president, religious leader balanced?

Are there any good examples of corporatism actually lasting and functioning in a desirable way? If so, why isn't it more popular?

​I actually hadn't heard the word "corporatism" used to describe Catholic social teaching until recently, though it seems 19th century Catholic thinkers used the word to mean something completely different than the fascist, statist sense of the term.  (Seems "corporatism" meant many different things to different groups of people).

Leo XIII was actually opposed to a massive centralized state controlling all aspects of life and society, as were his later followers.  If you read Rerum Novarum, you'd see that he advocates the rights of the family and those of private property and defends them against attempts to subjugate them to the state (as advocated by socialists and others).  He also supported voluntary fraternal organizations of workers and others, though what he advocated was actually closer to the trade guilds of the middle ages than modern labor unions.

John Paul II was probably one of the best and most thorough of recent popes on social teaching, and Centesimus Annus applied much of Leo XIIIs ideas to the modern world.  He advocated the principle of subsidiarity, and taught that matters should be handled at the small and local level whenever possible, rather than by centralized government, and cautioned against the growth of government bureaucracy.

They were hardly champions of a vast powerful centralized fascistic state.

As you might expect, I'm no fan of so-called "liberation theology," as it's little more than "baptized" Marxism.

[Era Might]

​Socialism by its nature requires enforcement by someone (whether you want to call it "the State" or just a gang of thugs).

If people voluntarily choose to give up personal property ownership to live in a monastery or a hippie commune, that's fine and good.  The state can just stay the hell out.

​That's pretty much the definition of government, "enforcement by someone." It doesn't matter what kind of government it is.

Your limitation of the state is arbitrary. One can just as easily call the bourgeoisie a gang of thugs who control the state (that's essentially the thrust of Marxism). As they say, follow the money if you want to know what's up.

I find it interesting that conservatives believe in the redistribution of power (which gave us liberal government and the bourgeoise state), but not redistribution of wealth. They are both based on the same principle...and redistributing power was just as revolutionary as redistributing wealth, and the church of that time was hardly championing the redistribution of power (which conservatives have come to see as some great eternal principle).

Edited June 8, 2015 by Era Might